Bluetooth audio quality
- Thread starter pat2330b
- Start date
ev13wt
Super Member
The ones I tried all where audible. As in distorted a bit, compressed (as in file size) and lacking "something". An 8 foot patch cord sounds better at matched volume. How much better? Phew. Pretty darn tiny really. Two recordings of the same song, using the same instruments and artists, compared to each other will have orders of magnitude higher "differences".
The ones I tried where all in the range of 20 bucks or so.
Do I use it? Yes. Background music, easy listening, people wanting to connect and play their music at parties (They understand bluetooth pairing, but not that 3.5 connects GND last...)
The new codec, APT-X? is supposedly better, as in that it does not alter the soundfile via compression, but I think I am missing some info here. I will try it out soon though.
edit: Aptx is a lossy compression as well. I am waiting for sound over ip / wifi.
The ones I tried where all in the range of 20 bucks or so.
Do I use it? Yes. Background music, easy listening, people wanting to connect and play their music at parties (They understand bluetooth pairing, but not that 3.5 connects GND last...)
The new codec, APT-X? is supposedly better, as in that it does not alter the soundfile via compression, but I think I am missing some info here. I will try it out soon though.
edit: Aptx is a lossy compression as well. I am waiting for sound over ip / wifi.
ev13wt
Super Member
From wiki:
aptX-HD (also known as aptX Lossless) supports high-definition audio up to 96 kHz sampling rates and sample resolutions up to 24 bits. The codec optionally permits a "hybrid" coding scheme for applications where average and/or peak compressed data rates must be capped at a constrained level. This involves the dynamic application of a form of "near lossless" coding – but only for those short sections of audio where completely lossless coding cannot respect the bandwidth constraints. Even for those short periods while the "near lossless" coding is active, high-definition audio quality is maintained, retaining audio frequencies up to 20 kHz and a dynamic range of at least 120 dB.
So in reality it should be pretty much transparent "enough".
aptX-HD (also known as aptX Lossless) supports high-definition audio up to 96 kHz sampling rates and sample resolutions up to 24 bits. The codec optionally permits a "hybrid" coding scheme for applications where average and/or peak compressed data rates must be capped at a constrained level. This involves the dynamic application of a form of "near lossless" coding – but only for those short sections of audio where completely lossless coding cannot respect the bandwidth constraints. Even for those short periods while the "near lossless" coding is active, high-definition audio quality is maintained, retaining audio frequencies up to 20 kHz and a dynamic range of at least 120 dB.
So in reality it should be pretty much transparent "enough".
While I agree that Bluetooth is not ideal, there are exceptions:
I run Bluetooth from my computer to an Audioengine B1 Bluetooth receiver connected to a Cambridge Audio DAC before going to my amp. While perhaps not quite CD quality, the difference is so small (and the convenience so great) that I have removed the CD player from my system.
YMMV
Living now in a motorcoach I do a lot of listening using Apple TV, the web and a bluray player through my "smart" television as sources using various headphones via an aptx low latency transmitter and receiver. The sound is fine; excellent clarity and low distortion, I think it qualifies as high fidelity. If I'm bullshitting myself I'm OK with that.
soundmotor
super modified
ev13wt
Super Member
LOL!
Hey pat2330b,
I have used the Logitech:
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/logite...ffcode=pg199033&ksdevice=c&lsft=ref:212,loc:2
It's nice and has a good range as well. its on par with the RCA to 3.5mm headphone jack. I have not had mine hooked up in a good while due to swapping out amps, but now i feel inclined to set it up again. Ill do so this evening.
Kind Regards,
John
RobRoy
It's just stuff - but fun
For any "critical" listening, it is always direct wire for me (and vinyl).
But most of my listening is anything but "critical". Bluetooth is AWESOME for that. It plays my 128k MP3's very well. And all the others, too. Room shaking bass when I want it, and all the highs I can hear. My hearing goes all the way up to 9.5khz. Dynamic range isn't an issue and, for background, compression can be an advantage anyway.
But most of my listening is anything but "critical". Bluetooth is AWESOME for that. It plays my 128k MP3's very well. And all the others, too. Room shaking bass when I want it, and all the highs I can hear. My hearing goes all the way up to 9.5khz. Dynamic range isn't an issue and, for background, compression can be an advantage anyway.
I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but I use an Arcam miniBlink for streaming radio from my laptop to my NAD AV receiver. I am quite surprised at the sound quality.
http://www.arcam.co.uk/range/rseries/miniblink.htm
http://www.arcam.co.uk/range/rseries/miniblink.htm
In my case bt convenience makes up for the far less than stellar sound quality. No it's not as good as fm or a cd but being able to playback audio from my phone and control it with a smartwatch is a pretty cool thing to do during times when fm programming is terrible and changing cd's isn't something I want to do. Bt is by far my worst sounding source in my main rig but it does have it's spot.........till something better comes along.
Rex81
Well-Known Member
A well-implemented modern Bluetooth setup should never sound "bad", especially if it has AptX. Apt-X is capable of carrying greater than 320kbps.
Unfortunately, some people heard early implementations where cymbal crashes would break up and things just sounded off. Now they say all Bluetooth is bad and has no place in an audiophile setup. The reality is that if you're streaming Spotify, Pandora, XM, or your MP3 collection, you're not losing anything listening to Bluetooth. I have to wonder if those that claim it sounds terrible might be hearing confirmation bias. Or rather, it sounds bad because they believe its supposed to sound bad.
I don't use it for critical listening of Redbook and hi-res, but for anything less, it sounds exactly as it should and it's really frickin' convenient. I've used the Logitech BT receiver linked above, and liked it a lot. I recommend it frequently.
Unfortunately, some people heard early implementations where cymbal crashes would break up and things just sounded off. Now they say all Bluetooth is bad and has no place in an audiophile setup. The reality is that if you're streaming Spotify, Pandora, XM, or your MP3 collection, you're not losing anything listening to Bluetooth. I have to wonder if those that claim it sounds terrible might be hearing confirmation bias. Or rather, it sounds bad because they believe its supposed to sound bad.
I don't use it for critical listening of Redbook and hi-res, but for anything less, it sounds exactly as it should and it's really frickin' convenient. I've used the Logitech BT receiver linked above, and liked it a lot. I recommend it frequently.
RobRoy
It's just stuff - but fun
This is interesting. I use my LG-G4 phone in my car connected to the car stereo via bluetooth. When the car is stopped (i.e. I can hear the music clearly) it sounds fantastic.
Rex81
Well-Known Member
Yep, in an older car I had, the Bluetooth sounded awful. On my current car (2014 model), sound quality is excellent, with no degradation of sound whatsoever.
If a Bluetooth setup sounds bad, the person is using old technology.
KeninDC
Hazy Cosmic Jive
I have a NuForce Bluetooth receiver plugged into the spare RCA analog inputs on my Marantz 2238. I stream FLAC, 320k MP3, SXM, and Spotify on "Extreme" quality. Sounds darn good and is convenient. As the cliche states, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
Would you consider a 1 year old Audioengine B1 "old technology"? This is what I use (my Logitech I don't even consider listenable) and my old tech ears tell me a far different story.
